So, the NYT claims after a whole year of digging that Adam Back is the one behind Satoshi Nakamoto.
I found some details on this at a news site, if you're interested.
But on the bright side, Adam Back himself has denied it, according to what I just read on BBC. He made it clear he isn't the mysterious Bitcoin creator that the NYT pointed out.
Honestly, why do people even bother trying to figure out who Satoshi is when it’s obvious they don’t want to come forward?
Because it makes them money. Imagine you own a magazine, and one of your journalists says he's convinced he's figured out who Satoshi is. It doesn't matter if the article contains the holy truth. It only matters if it takes enough attention, and you make money from that attention.
At least they keep repeating the same names we all know, and there are no new victims.
I read the article from the NYT, and what it contains is speculation, not analysis:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/business/takeaways-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin-adam-back.html
The article discusses the similarities between Satoshi and Adam Back, noting that both prefer to operate anonymously online, using pseudonyms. Adam Back was also credited with pioneering almost all of Bitcoin's features.
If Satoshi had revealed himself, he would have done so long ago.
From Craig Wright to today, none of those who want to be the real Satoshi are actually Satoshi.
And I think that those who are trying to be Satoshi are actually just acting to find the real Satoshi, which is never possible!
I think that the real Satoshi will never be revealed, this cycle will continue!
I think only Stephen Craig wright has been the only person that is claiming to be Satoshi, no other person is claiming to be Satoshi. Other people are only called out to be Satoshi but all of them are saying it is not true. Also Adam Back is only called out to likely be Satoshi, but he has also said the claim is biased and also indicating that it is not true.
If we are going to count on the numbers of those who have claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, they are so many and everyone is just trying to gain the attraction of online presence, because the actual identity of satoshi cannot be known and this is what will always be maintained because bitcoin itself is about privacy and we don't expect to see the Creator being the first vulnerable person to his privacy on this regard.
If he is Satoshi Nakamoto, he would not show himself around over many years.
I also would like to quote this post.
It's not about people or everyone, it is just from people who want to cook news for getting traffics to their newspapers, social medial channels and similarly. The will pick any Cypherpunks or any random people and make news that person is Satoshi Nakamoto.
News like this will continue appearing in the future, and topics about Satoshi Nakamoto identity will appear more in the future, hence the following list will become longer.
I gathered every Satoshi Nakamoto thread.
Wasting time is one thing but wasting time, money consistently to prove that you are Satoshi is the most idiotic thing I have ever seen. I am talking about Craig Steven Wright, who eventually lost the case in court. Obviously, he was not the real one, but still, he wasted that much time. Now everyone knows him.
Cringe and hate, kind of content, is an easier way to get famous fast, so I think that's why people are using their free will and speculating anything they want haha. Maybe I should run a post similar to this, but I know I will get a lot of hate and I can't tolerate that, haha, I think someone once said here that he is Satoshi, not once but maybe a few times.
I guess to sell a supposed groundbreaking story that no one has sold before.
If you look at it, Satoshi is a well recognized figure, and for a figure with an undisclosed identity, people won't stop pointing fingers at random individuals all for the sake of trying to be the first to figure out the genius behind Bitcoin. Well, I just hope they don't start forcing it on those who are not greedy like the dude(Craig Wright)who claimed to be him. Looking forward to who they're going to point fingers at next... Might eventually be you OP.
Op doesn't know about what the mainstream media-fugazee is all about? They just want to make any news fly-- aren't they still the ones that made people like that moron, what's his name again... CW famous? We're talking about die-hard impersonators. At least one from the group is outrightly denying lmao. He doesn't need the smoke!
just name len sassaman or peter todd or hal finney in your theory and its either youll attract theorists wholl agree with you or people who will disagree with you and call your theory absurd
either one you attract, thats still attention gained. remember for news companies, click = profit.
at this point, as long as the real satoshi comes out and says something nothing matters to me not even these investigations.
I would never have known who is Adam Back without this post. People now make money through social media and other means. And the means of achieving it is to look for means to become popular. This is also another way of attracting readers to the magazine. The linguistic analysis used to link Satoshi and Back is trash. I am glad they said the result was inconclusive because they raised more questions than provide answers.
It's very simple: if "Satoshi" is alive, then he would have sold at least some of his Bitcoin. Anything else go contrary to human nature, and simply makes no sense. Satoshi never sold a single sat, let alone a significant chunk of his holdings.
The other explanation would be that if he was part of the US government, and couldn't do it legally (i.e. the Bitcoin wouldn't be his, it would belong to the government since he made it on the job).
Hence the only two possible explanations that make any sense thus far about Satoshi is:
1. He's dead.
2. He works/worked for the US government. (Or "he" was a small team working there).
(And why specifically the US government, and not some other world government? Because only the US is rich enough to turn down $100 billion just to keep a secret).
Let's see... satoshi wanted the blocksize to increase with usage, not Adam. satoshi worked on other blockchains and had a merged mining future vision of crypto, not Adam. satoshi thought that networks patented by private companies were obvious attack vectors that should be avoided, not Adam. satoshi believed in freedom of speech, not Adam. satoshi thought developers should work on Bitcoin for humanity instead of a paycheck, not Adam. satoshi didn't want credit for his creation, not Adam.
If you think satoshi is Adam Back, you are just stupid. As if the NYT could lose any more credibility...
And I feel very satisfied that Adam appeared on the broadcast to defend the false allegation that he is the Satoshi pf all people are being too eager to be known.
That was indeemov very intellectual security move him because if he had kept quiet or jokingly accept that claim, it could be risky for him because the those with evil minds will definitely have him on track just as we have had of those whose identity with their owned Bitcoin is disclosed to the public that encounters kidnaps.
With this very fact even if the real Satoshi is being pointed out, he would still do the same as Adam Back and so on anyone venting to identify who Satoshi is would just be a waste of time.
I read the original article and the journalists analytical approach was very wrong. According to the article, he used words and phrases to link Satoshi and Black. We all know Satoshi has a good number of posts on bitcointalk and his posts are sometimes in British and American English. I stopped reading the article when I got to the part where he claimed Adam Black was Satoshi because Black was cited in the bitcoin white paper. If Satoshi was Adam Black, why would he cite himself in the white paper?
Michael Saylors response pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.
NYT's job is to report on Bitcoin or crypto, now if they can bring Satoshi to the forefront then their news will be the best and most popular in the world. So they think of Adam as Satoshi and almost everyone knows the reason for thinking this. Yes Satoshi has always worked for humanity so he created Bitcoin, in that case how is Adam working like Satoshi, Adam only created a system called Hashcash. Which cannot be compared to Satoshi at all.
Satoshi is a wise man so he has chosen to keep himself secret. However, if he wanted to, he could have come out in public long ago but he did not come, maybe there is a reason for that. However, NYT is also looking for Satoshi for their popularity.
You mean why are people trying to make money from articles that has no sense. It's not today that we are seeing such articles where they try to uncover the face behind bitcoin. It's usually same for all as they don't have any good results just something to drag the public once more. I think the last video which was published( can't remember when) which had said they will uncover satoshi at said date still ended up with nothing but speculations. I don't know why people still don't get it. If satoshi wanted to be found he would have made him self available for a long time. His absence represents a lot about what bitcoin truly stands for and they should stop trying to look for him..
NYT spent a whole year and Adam Back denied it within hours haha, that's a rough return on investment for a journalism team.
But your core point is the most important one bro, as Satoshi's identity being unknown is not a bug in the history of BTC, it is actually one of its most powerful features. His real identity reveal will be the biggest reveal ever and also after that, everything will change. His 1.1 million btc becomes a legal target, governments can start issuing subpoenas, haha and suddenly it can impact BTC price for sure, but eventually the case will fade.
It's not the first time Adam Back has been "identified" as Satoshi. He may actually be one of the most-overanalyzed people in that "possible Satoshi pantheon".
Even here in the forum there was already speculation in 2016 about him. And that well known 2024 documentary ("Money Electric") pointed him out as one of the candidates to be Satoshi, only considering Peter Todd a bit more likely. Other people speculating about that are Charles Hoskinson (a shitcoin entrepreneur) in 2021 and a Twitter user MitsuhBailey in 2020. He has always denied it.
I have already said it in another occasion: Probably everybody who is suspected as being Satoshi would do best in denying it. He would be the biggest candidate for a $5 wrench attack. So Back saying he's not is actually not Satoshi, doesn't prove anything.
However, it doesn't seem really more likely this NYT article is more correct than other similar "investigations".
I think in the end it really doesn't really matter. Adam Back has made one of the most important inventions for Bitcoin when he created Hashcash (and thus the base of the Proof of Work mechanism), and thus he belongs into the pantheon of the people that made Bitcoin possible.